This apparently applies to alerting authorities that a 49-year-old woman is sexually abusing a teenage boy.

​A new report released by the Chandler Police Department shows that detectives investigating two bishops in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recommended that the two men be charged with crimes for failing to report the sexual abuse of a teenage boy at the hands of Susan Brock, the wife of Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock.

"It's recommended that Troy Hansen and Matthew Meyers be charged with ARS 13-3620, duty to report," Officer Christopher Perez concludes in his report on the investigation into the two bishops.

However, as we noted yesterday, the Pinal County Attorney's Office opted not to charge the bishops with any crimes.

According to the report, on October 9, Meyers first learned that Susan Brock had sexually abused the boy. Meyers never called police. Rather, he waited a week and called Hansen, the "ecclesiastic leader" of the victim's family, on October 16.

In addition to calling Hansen about the abuse, Meyers called the Salt Lake City law firm Kirton & McConkie, which provides legal service for the LDS church.

The police, apparently, were the last ones on Meyers' list of people who probably should have known that a 49-year-old woman was having a sexual relationship with a teenage boy.

Meyers also advised Hansen to call "legal" after learning of the abuse because "um, you know, 'cause it, these things are . . . you know, anything with abuse."

Still, nobody bothered to call police -- not even the LDS' lawyers.

The LDS church issued a statement about the abuse and its role in bringing Susan Brock to justice, noting that "[bishops Meyers and Hansen] were instrumental in getting the matter reported to law enforcement authorities." In reality, Meyers and Hansen did nothing to get the matter reported to law enforcement.

"I have seen no evidence to support that any member of the LDS church either in Arizona or globally has contacted the Chandler Police Department," Officer Perez notes in his report.

The police finally were called when the victim's father got "tired of waiting" for church leaders to do something, and called them himself.

When he contacted police, the father told officers that he was told by Bishop Hansen that "things were being done" in regard to contacting authorities and that "it was going to be dealt with."

The father told Perez he was "waiting for what seemed like forever for someone to knock at their front door" before taking matters into his own hands (as he probably should have done in the first place) and telling authorities that his teenage son was sexually abused by the 49-year-old wife of a Maricopa County supervisor.

We Recommend

Really?!?! The church leaders are not going to be charged? How is this NOT a crime?!?! They are community leaders who are supposed to set an example! What kind of message does this send to the victim? That he is not important enough to address the issue with authorities and that this type of thing should be kept hush hush. I call BULLSHIT! I am absolutely OUTRAGED! I am a victim of sexual abuse by my biological father. When i went to the police in the small Wyoming town where we lived at the time I was labeled a liar and a troublemaker. The police did nothing. The leaders in the community did nothing. I can tell you from personal experience that the message that was sent to me, and to any other victim who was treated like the issue didn't happen or should be kept quiet, is that it was okay for the abuser to do what they did. 25 years and a lot of therapy later, I am past that stigma. Not that it was acceptable, but it was a very small town in Wyoming, and it was the 80's. This is 2011! Phoenix is not a backwards-ass hick town! I can say with relative certainty that if they had all been members of the CATHOLIC church and the clergy had done nothing that there WOULD have been charges filed! How absolutely HIPPOCRITICAL for Pinal county to cowtow to the Mormon church! DO YOUR JOBS AND PROTECT THE INNOCENT!! We need to send a clear message to abusers that ANY and ALL authority figures are OBLIGATED to turn them in! All leaders from every religion, community, and organization MUST be held accountable for their actions (or non- actions) consistently!

If the Chandler PD recommended charges for the bishops, why not follow through?

I know why. Shurf Paul Buffoon called in a favor to his old buddies over at Chandler PD. He told them not to charge the bishops with anything, despite a state law mandating that they do.

As for the Senile Spinster, since Fulton's buddy-buddy with the Joker, and the Joker is buddy-buddy with Shurf Buffoon, who called in this whitewash, the Flaccid Fool thought (he's capable of thinking? That's a new one, even for me) it was best to stay out of the ring. Besides, he was probably too busy raiding Pei Weis looking for illegals.....

Clearly a law was broken("Duty to Report") as mentioned by Officer Perez. If Pinal County can't enforce the law. Then who will? We know that the A.G. Mr. Horns is weak and inept. I guess this leads to a dead end, until someone steps up to the plate and enforce the law. Otherwise, we'll be seeing a pack of Republifools getting away with crimes.(sample: Fulton Brock).

My opinion? The church should NEVER have been involved. It's not a church matter to investigate criminal behavior. Maybe they will learn from this incident. Likely not, however, unless the two characters are charged and dragged kicking and screaming through the criminal justice system. Doesn't it seem ODD that the MCSO shurf, who allegedly enforces ALL crimes, seems completely disinterested in this issue with the wife and daughter of Fulton Brock? Lack of primary jurisdiction has never slowed him down before...

Jason and Shadow: It's a 'slippery slope' at the very best. The prosecutor has to evaluate the charges based on reasonableness of conviction. If the Mormon church structure considers these two members as extensions of 'clergy' then they can argue client/clergy privilege, whether valid or not.

I will assume that the prosecution evaluation determines there simply was not enough probability of conviction, thus the charges were not made. Does this mean that I personally think they shouldn't be charged? Hell no. I personally think the whole thing stinks and I think the parents should have gone directly to the police in the first place.

I also think Mr. Brock was VERY complicit in protecting his wife with the knowledge that she had been having sex with a male 'child'. It appears he knew much more, much sooner than he is admitting to (shades of his hero, the MCSO shurf) and he apparently just didn't consider it a big deal. I guess I am just more conservative than Mr. Brock. I would be seriously pissed if I were in Mr. Brock's position, and it would be a very cold day in hell before I visited her sorry ass in jail. But that's just me, and I'm apparently just not praying as hard as Mr. Brock. Did I mention that I think Mr. Brock is about as phony as any one person could be?

the politicians are in bed with the mormons, and as we can see with the call to their lawyer, they don't care about their clergy, they only care about their image.mormons put their church first above all else. look at colorado city, and I'm sorry but do not tell me the FLDS is not the mormon church. they lds only dropped the flds for publicity reasons, just like these people not stepping up to protect a boy being molested.

I am outraged. what happened to "illegal is illegal".

and to all the mormon posters who are going to call me prejudice why have you not gotten your friends together and demand these evil people are brought to justice?

and yes, covering up for a child molester is about as evil as you can get.

"It's not a church matter to investigate criminal behavior. Maybe they will learn from this incident."

It'll happen the day pink monkeys come flying out your ass.

The Mormon Church is too entrenched in issues of sexual exploitation of women and children. This is not a freak incident. This is the one that came to light. The Mormon heirarchy are no more likely to change their attitudes towards pedophilia than the Roman Catholic heirarchy.

Sorry PUNK, 1. I don't need a gang to back me up. 2. As far as your invitation, you must think that everybody is as stupid as your homies because who else would be dumb-ass enough to walk into a rattlesnake den?(sorry if iI offended any actual rattlesnakes. 3. Some of you have criticized my Atheism, Yeah, right, the first people I think of calling when I want to learn religious values is a bunch of ignorant bikers.

I read he kicked your ass, that you cried like a bitch and that he spared you the humiliation of publishing the video because hearing you promise that you'd blow him every night for the rest of his life was simply too revolting for public consumption.

Tough guy, you, sitting behind your keyboard, but as I read, you're just another pussy. (Same goes for me, but I'm not the one bragging about being tough when I'm really just a piece of shite the world would be better without.)

Good post T.C.I was actually hoping Chad Snow would say something like this.

Regarding Mr. Brock, it appears to me that the deplorable denial lingering in his subconscience, renders him to believe that he is immune from these sorts criminality within the Church & Family. It is probably something they were taught while as a member of the Church. The current characterization of Mr. Brock reminds me of that father of "the Brady Bunch." He sarcastically brushes off his role in the matter, like this is nothing.

Because the father reported it, and he was not the abuser, the exemption would not apply. It was not a confession, it was a report.

Here's the language from the law:

"A member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest may otherwise make of the minor."

"and to all the mormon posters who are going to call me prejudice whyhave you not gotten your friends together and demand these evil peopleare brought to justice?"

More to the point, the fact that the two bishops have not been censured by the Mormon Church signals that the Mormon Church heirarchy, at levels well above that of the bishops, is accepting of the sexual abuse of children.

Ya know, the party line is that regardless of the silliness of the mythology we should be religious because it helps us be better people. But so often, it seems like it just helps scoundrels rationalize the foulest sorts of behavior.

Shadow, if I recall correctly I believe Mr. Brock threatened to call the MCSO shurf to make Chandler P.D. stop searching his house under the authority of a court ordered search warrant. This action alone indicates that Brock believes in the fairly tale of the MCSO shurf, and it indicates that he attempted to interfere in the investigative process. It appears Brock fits right there with the shurf: a man lacking ethics, character, and the ability to be truthful.

Incredibly, this guy played us all for fools from day one. I actually felt badly for him the day it all hit the proverbial fan..... "Oh what a fool I've been. Mr. Brock has struck again".

KC, thanks for your explanation. I seriously doubt that prosecution gave any thought to the legal definition of confession and confidential report in the first place. I think it was more along the lines of having to prosecute the two members of the church, and indirectly the church and it's doctrines, beliefs, and practices; as well. I believe it was simply easier to say, 'no thanks', than to take on the challenge. Not to mention there was probably a meeting with the Pinal shurf to get his take on it. I'm sure he believes every word that Mr. Brock and the church have uttered. It's embarrassing to see such a naive person in that position...

While the caselaw on failure to report is scant, the legal meaning of confession and confidential report are well defined.

There are only two exceptions from the duty: a confession and a confidential report. Here, the father was not the abuser, no confession. Further, he REQUESTED and later DEMANDED that his report be shared, so it would not be considered confidential.

Before a decent judge this claim doesn't make it past motions. And if an appeal were filed, who cares? Appeals happen in most every case. It's no big deal.

There is more here than a simple "we aren't likely to win" decision (which, I note, you are correct in raising for consideration, as that is the prosecutor's obligation.)

Hmm... Wall Street, Big Banks/mortgage lenders, B.P., any number of politicians or corporations (CEOs?) might all be put forward as recent examples of (poor) "prosecutorial discretion", especially by any number of their victims, or even average citizens. Why would & should we expect some 2-bit, backwater county office to exhibit the character and fortitude (balls) to go after the rich and influential, when the Feds are clearly such wimps?

'Society has always seemed to demand a little more from human beings than it will get in practice" -George Orwell

Kit, I would love to see it go further, but I don't expect that to happen. I don't think the Pinal folks have the intestinal fortitude to take it on..... and since you're a lawyer and I'm not, I will accept your explanation even though I think it still extends to the reporting person, in this case the father. It would certainly be a case that would go through a long appeal process.